The way we define “inheritance” as a common term of the 21st century, usually entails a very concrete-based transmission from one to another. We also assume that whatever is gifted holds monetary and/or emotional value. But, when we really think about inheritance in the familial, social, historical, and hierarchical realm, we must also take into account the less-tangible or acknowledgeable things like values, stigmas, traditions, and even genetic qualities. Maternal inheritance, for example, is what is literally passed down genetically, the “acquisition of characters or qualities by transmission from parent to offspring.” I really like this definition because there is a clear delineation that takes place; the authority, or parent, transmits to the recipient, the innocent offspring. There is no choice in the birthing process, no genetic “draft day” where embryos fight for the quarterback or lineman of all genomes. In a way, this inheritance is forced upon us, and this is how both Corinne and Oswald view it.
What is ironic to note is that they were both inheritance, or what we would consider, “trust-fund” babies. Corinne’s monetary inheritance allotted her the freedom to travel and become this free, “improviser.” In a way this money gave her the ability to improvise, speculate and ultimately experiment to see what new self she could create. In Book XII, we hear about Oswald’s story, and how his sense of entitlement and independent wealth also provided him with means to travel and ultimately meet Corinne. His inheritance also became an integral part of their downfall as a couple, particularly the way Oswald had a very patriarchal sense of “duty” to his father. “To break Corinne’s heart or fail his duty to his father’s memory was such a cruel dilemma” he thinks after reading his father’s letter.
Discussing the tangible inheritance, it is always important to ask what or who the original source is. The concept of “genius” for example, is explored in Corinne. One passage I found particularly interesting deals with the sourcing of “genius”: “Genius inspires the need for fame and, moreover, there is no good that is not desired by those to whom nature has given the means of obtaining it” (293). In this way, nature, or the maternal inheritance comes into play, and nature seems to be the “mother” who gifts the genius.
To look at a more literal mother, I am sure Mary Shelly felt she inherited at least some of her literary talents from her mother, who she revered and often cited. Everyone tries to find those similarities between themselves and whomever created them. In doing so, it is easy to also fabricate inherited qualities as both readers and individuals as well. Madam de Stael was a “genius” in her time and her aristocratic parents worked very hard to make sure she was properly educated. Did her education create this genius? Interactions and connections within her social status? What piece of it did she “inherit” from her family and what portion maybe comes from nature? While this isn’t necessarily important to discuss Corinne, it is always important to be mindful of because it helps to shape our critical frame. What are we assuming about de Stael before reading her?
With assumption comes inheritance. We inherit these very binary forms of colliding positive and negative with masculine and feminine. We’ve inherited this judgment because it is part of our society, but it often is not the case as Dr. Williamson has explained. So, taking a step back from the biographical and historical information would be a helpful exercise to see all that the text and author is revealing.
Frankly, I had no idea the concept of “inheritance” would bring up so many questions and directions, and I find myself only scraping the surface here!
Further:
-Looking at feminist/queer theory and relating it back to inheritance would be interesting when reviewing all three major texts and authors of this class.
-Viewing values and theories that we’ve inherited from scholars that came before us, and what it means to inherit versus learn.
What is ironic to note is that they were both inheritance, or what we would consider, “trust-fund” babies. Corinne’s monetary inheritance allotted her the freedom to travel and become this free, “improviser.” In a way this money gave her the ability to improvise, speculate and ultimately experiment to see what new self she could create. In Book XII, we hear about Oswald’s story, and how his sense of entitlement and independent wealth also provided him with means to travel and ultimately meet Corinne. His inheritance also became an integral part of their downfall as a couple, particularly the way Oswald had a very patriarchal sense of “duty” to his father. “To break Corinne’s heart or fail his duty to his father’s memory was such a cruel dilemma” he thinks after reading his father’s letter.
Discussing the tangible inheritance, it is always important to ask what or who the original source is. The concept of “genius” for example, is explored in Corinne. One passage I found particularly interesting deals with the sourcing of “genius”: “Genius inspires the need for fame and, moreover, there is no good that is not desired by those to whom nature has given the means of obtaining it” (293). In this way, nature, or the maternal inheritance comes into play, and nature seems to be the “mother” who gifts the genius.
To look at a more literal mother, I am sure Mary Shelly felt she inherited at least some of her literary talents from her mother, who she revered and often cited. Everyone tries to find those similarities between themselves and whomever created them. In doing so, it is easy to also fabricate inherited qualities as both readers and individuals as well. Madam de Stael was a “genius” in her time and her aristocratic parents worked very hard to make sure she was properly educated. Did her education create this genius? Interactions and connections within her social status? What piece of it did she “inherit” from her family and what portion maybe comes from nature? While this isn’t necessarily important to discuss Corinne, it is always important to be mindful of because it helps to shape our critical frame. What are we assuming about de Stael before reading her?
With assumption comes inheritance. We inherit these very binary forms of colliding positive and negative with masculine and feminine. We’ve inherited this judgment because it is part of our society, but it often is not the case as Dr. Williamson has explained. So, taking a step back from the biographical and historical information would be a helpful exercise to see all that the text and author is revealing.
Frankly, I had no idea the concept of “inheritance” would bring up so many questions and directions, and I find myself only scraping the surface here!
Further:
-Looking at feminist/queer theory and relating it back to inheritance would be interesting when reviewing all three major texts and authors of this class.
-Viewing values and theories that we’ve inherited from scholars that came before us, and what it means to inherit versus learn.